Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Foolishness from the "Rational Responders" in their Jesus Challenge

JP Holding’s anti-blog entry yesterday discussed a $100 prize being offered by an atheist group called – I am not kidding – the “Rational Responders”:

We are offering a $100 reward and an appearance on our radio show where we will admit we we're wrong to the person who can set a precedent that other important historical figures exist without contemporary evidence. Provide us with the names of five important historical figures that were not written about until at least 25 years after they died (like Jesus).

Were Any of Jesus' Teachings or Activities Recorded During His Time?

It is erroneous to simply assume that there was nothing written down about Jesus until 25 years after his death. Apparently, the atheists here simply assume that nothing was written about Jesus until the Gospel of Mark. This ignores the early letters of Paul, which clearly refer to Jesus and contain traditions about him and which were written beginning about 16-19 years after Jesus’ death. More to the point, the group’s assumption is a naïve, and convenient given their bias, one that has little to commend it. It is likely, given Christian traditions preserved in Paul and the Gospels, and given the nature of Jewish society, that many of Jesus’ teachings and activities were written down while he was alive. (See my, “The Oral and Written Jesus Tradition Prior to the Gospel of Mark,” October 23, 2005). The prologue to the Gospel of Luke, which speaks of “many” preceding accounts of Jesus’ life, adds further weight to this conclusion. At the very least, the assumption that there were no sources about Jesus, such as Q, L, or M, that were incorporated into the canonical Gospels is untenable.

If accounts were written during Jesus' ministry, why do they not exist today? First, it is hardly surprising that they do not. Many ancient documents failed to survive to this day. In this case, there is even less reason to think they would have survived. Earlier accounts were likely supplanted by the more comprehensive Gospels that came later. However, the determinative factor was likely that any contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life would have been written in Aramaic, whereas Christianity prospered predominantly among Greek speaking peoples. Documents were passed on by being continually copied by dedicated scribes. They were preserved and copied because they were useful. Aramaic sources about Jesus would have had little utility and their preservation by repeated copying would have been close to a practical impossibility by Greek-speaking scribes. Consider that we know that the earliest Christians in the Jerusalem Church spoke Aramaic but no Aramaic Christian sources have survived to this day (whether affirming a historical Jesus or not). So, there likely were some writings about Jesus’ teachings and activities recorded during his life. At the very least, it is a likelihood that cannot be dismissed simply because such writings have not survived to the present day.Is this Really What Historians Require?

No, it is not. The demand for a contemporary written account is not one required by professional historians. People serious about the study of history, rather than those eager to sacrifice such inquiry to promote their own ideological agenda, study the sources we have to see whether they contain authentic traditions traceable to the object of study. A source that has information dating back to the object of study is reliable to that extent whether it was written 5, 15, or 50 years after the object of study. Paul’s letters and the Gospels contain such reliable traditions. This is one reason that real historians have again and again rejected the Jesus Myth for decades now. Even the very liberal Jesus Seminar traces back a substantial number of sayings from the Gospels back to the historical Jesus.

A Plethora of Examples

Now for the heart of the "challenge." It is actually quite easy to list five “important historical figures” who existed but for whom there are no surviving contemporary references. JP Holding over at Tektonics.org lists these:

We can start with John the Baptist. John the Baptist was an important religious figure contemporary to Jesus who operated in the same cultural and geographical environment. As such, his is a good example of whether we should insist that there be surviving "contemporary" writings about Jesus' life. And it is undisputed that there are no such writings about John the Baptist. The earliest references to John the Baptist are, in fact, the Gospels themselves. He ranks no mention in Paul’s letters or any Roman source of the period. Josephus also mentions John the Baptist, but six decades later. Nevertheless, his existence is not disputed by historians and is firmly established. So, here is an important historical figure contemporary to Jesus -- who shared Jesus' geographical and cultural environment as well as his profession -- but for whom there is even less and later evidence than for Jesus.

Next, we will take up four at once: Mattathias, Judas, Jonathan and Simon (aka, the Maccabees). Mattathias was a Priest and father to Judas, Jonathan and Simon. Matthathias sparked the Jewish revolt against the Seleucids and his sons carried it forward to success. They are the quintessential Jewish heroes and the dominant figures of their day.

Relevant for our purposes is that Mattathias died around 166 BC, Judah died in battle around 160 BC, Jonathan died around 143 BC, and Simon died around 135 BC.

The earliest references of which I am aware are First and Second Maccabees. (I admit that OT Apocrypha is not my specialty, so I welcome any correction and reference to earlier citations to the Maccabees). Both of those documents were written around 104 BC or later. Thus, they were written 60-30 years after the time of the Maccabees.

Another candidate is Apollonius of Tyana, who died near the end of the first century. The main source for his life – and his existence is not disputed – is Philostratus’ The Life of Apollonius of Tyana. Philostratus’ book, however, was written over a hundred years after his life. There are scattered references before The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, but none that I have found which are within 40 years of his death. As John P. Meier notes, “the problem of sources comes down to the fact that we have almost total silence about Apollonius (apart from a few scraps, such as a passing negative reference in the 2d-century satirist Lucian of Samosata) until we come to Philostratus’ work.” Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. II, page 577.

I also think Chrestus would qualify according to the “Rational Responders” criteria. The Roman writer Suetonius refers to rioting in Rome, instigated by “Chrestus,” which lead to the expulsion of the Jews from Rome. Many think that “Chrestus” is a reference to Jesus. Most skeptics and atheists reject this. If this was indeed another person, then he instigated riots in Rome around the middle of the first century. Suetonius did not write about him until around 115 AD.

Yet another candidate is Clement of Rome, who was a leader in the Roman church in the latter part of the first century. Although 1 Clement is attributed to him, the letter does not identify him as its author and appears to have been written on behalf of all the leaders in the Roman Church, rather than by any one person. The first reference to Clement of Rome that I have found is in the Shepard of Hermas, written around the middle of the second century; thus separating the reference from the man by about 40 years.

Other candidates I would suggest are Judas the Galilean, Rabbi Akiva, Theudas, several other Jewish rebels, the Egyptian, and Simon Magus. I have no doubt that there are many more (and more have already been suggested by others), but frankly the idea is so separated from reality that I feel little need to pursue it further. See, my emphasis is in New Testament history. That emphasis quickly made some examples clear to me. Other commentators who specialize in other time periods, other cultures, and other geographical locations will likely be able to easily offer a number of examples off the tops of their heads.

My Interaction with the "Rational Responders"

I actually posted some of these suggestions on the “Rational Responders” discussion board. I was promptly informed that “biblical figures” did not count because the Bible is not trustworthy. (Nevermind that this is the usual skeptic play of treating the Bible as one monolithic source when it is in fact a collection of often independent sources of different genres and time periods). When I pointed out that figures such as John the Baptist and Judas the Galilean were well established by non-biblical sources, I was told that it did not matter because they wanted to “whittle” the number of possibilities down. Biblical figures, even those whose existence is not disputed and is established by non-biblical sources, would not be considered for the contest. This made no sense.

But then the conversation got even stranger. The “Rational Responders” moderator admitted that they had already lost the contest because they had received more than five figures whose existence was accepted but for whom there was not what they call “contemporary evidence.” Even more submissions were coming in and it is apparent that they were operating out of gross ignorance of the realities of historical studies. The fact is that often our best sources of information about ancient figures and events are ones that were written down after the life of the person described or the events noted therein.

The moderator tried to defend the ignorance of the "Rational Responders" contest by saying they had argued on some discussion boards and no one ever gave them an example before. I think that admission is very revealing. Too many skeptics are so full of themselves or their skepticism that they think that if no one has brought it to their attention then it must not exist. As if the world owes them an obligation to spoon feed them every little factoid that stands in the way of their comfortable skepticism. But participation in select discussion boards is no substitute for actual research and historical knowledge. Anyone with the most basic of knowledge about historical Jesus studies, for example, knows that there are no “contemporary” writings about John the Baptist, but that his existence is undisputed among historians. Yet such examples never occurred to them.

To top it off, the “Rational Responders” apparently thought better of admitting that the entire premise of their challenge to the existence of Jesus had been proven erroneous within hours of announcing their contest. When I checked back later this evening they had deleted our entire discussion. Which, in my book, adds cowardice to ignorance in their vice column.

Update: It appears that the -- no kidding -- "Rational Responders" have simply dropped this part of their competition altogether. But even having done so, they apparently have not yet grasped how ridiculous a standard of proof it is to demand a "contemporary" writing about the historical person in question.

Update2: I have been told that the "Rational Responders" did not delete the entire discussion, but moved it to another thread. However, it does not appear that they left any notice that they were splitting the threads, thus leading to the confusion. All in all, this has to be among the worst internet "contests" ever conceived. But perhaps "conceived" is too generous a term for the effort they put into it.

In any event, once I was informed that the "Rational Responders" had split the thread w/o the normal announcement that follows such action, I invited them to update our readers of that by commenting on this thread. For some reason, they could not be bothered to do so.

Don't apologize. My post was a long time ago, and I am surprised you even remembered it. I only mention it because it focuses on the logical flaw of their demand, whereas you have gone in and shown how their demand can be met quite clearly despite the limitation that I note. Of course, they aren't interested in the truth, and the fact that they are offering $666 as the reward shows that they are part of the crowd who thinks Christians are superstitious idiots who are frightened by a number. With all dues respect, while I appreciate the info, I am sorry to give the (Ir)Rational Response Squad this much press.

Good article, Chris. In addition to the examples you, J.P. Holding, and others have cited, I can think of some other examples from the early post-apostolic church.

Around the middle of the second century, Hegesippus writes about a cousin of Jesus named Symeon, who apparently was a prominent figure in the early church and lived several decades earlier. I don't know of any reference to Symeon in any earlier sources. And Hegesippus mentions other relatives of Jesus who held positions of leadership in the church, yet nobody refers to them in the records we have prior to Hegesippus.

Similarly, other patristic authors often refer to earlier church leaders who weren't mentioned previously in our extant records. Irenaeus repeatedly refers to disciples of the apostle John, for example, who would have been prominent in the church as a result of their relationship with the apostle. He only names two of them, Papias and Polycarp, but we know from the language he uses that he had to have had more than two in mind (Against Heresies, 2:22:5). Irenaeus recounts one occasion in which these disciples of John were consulted regarding the correct textual rendering of a passage in the book of Revelation (Against Heresies, 5:30:1). They had to have been prominent in the church as disciples of John, and the early churches knew of their existence and sometimes consulted them, yet we don't even know some of their names, and some of what we know about them isn't mentioned in our extant records any earlier than Irenaeus.

Or think of the heretics Irenaeus and other patristic sources refer to. Some of those heretics were founders of religious movements, but aren't mentioned by anybody in our extant records until decades after their death.

So many other examples could be cited, but one source that particularly comes to mind is Eusebius. Think of the many people and events mentioned in his church history that aren't mentioned in our extant earlier sources. How did Eusebius know of such people and events? He possessed many documents we don't have today. Similarly, the authors of the New Testament would have possessed many documents we don't have and would have had access to contemporaries and eyewitnesses who were still living.

The examples could be myriad. The "Rational Responders" might claim that Jesus' brother Symeon and all the other relatives did not exist either. Of course, this would make them look more and more ridiculous as they denied the existence of Jesus, John the Baptist, all Jesus' relatives, etc. I saw they are entertaining doubts about Peter and Paul's existence as well. I also suspect that if we proposed such people they would increase their ban on "biblical figures" to all Christian figures. Which just shows a) they have no interest in history, and b) they know little about history.

Your statement about purusing Eusebius is also well taken (what about Evodius?). I had the same thought about Josephus. We could mine a tremendous number of candidats from both sources for whom no rational objection could be raised.

Then there are the candidates that might not apply but which are instructive nonetheless. Paul traveled all over the Roman Empire. He encountered, and suffered at the hands, of many government officials. He was key in founding many Christian communities. He wrote letters that remain with us to this day. But he left not a hint of a reference in any non-Christian source. And the only arguable contemporary Christian reference to him is the Acts of the Apostles. So while he technically might not qualify, he does show how some of history's most important figures can escape notice by their contemporaries.

Heck, Apollonius makes the same point well. He supposedly was influential among the high and mighty of the Greek-speaking world, including authoring great works of value. Yet there are only a few blips on the radar -- none earlier than 40 years after his death that I have yet found -- until Philostratus read his piece about the famous and influential Apollonius.

They offered a monetary award for anyone who would do such and such, which is a contract. If it was written on-line, it is then a written contract. Once someone accepts the terms of that contract, the contract cannot be withdrawn or anulled unless the party which accepted the contract broke their end of the deal. But if the party which accepted did not break their end of the deal, then legally speaking, Rational Responders are required by law to pay the monetary award they offered in their contract to said party. And if they do not, they can be taken to court and sued for that money.

I suggest that if anyone has any evidence of this challenge--especially written (or typed on-line)--and the party which met the requirements did not get paid, that they threaten to sue Rational Responders for the cash if they do not pay. It's an open and shut case if the evidence exists for that contract. We already have multiple witnesses that can testify even without evidence.

It's funny because every student of history could provide a different list. I might toss this over to my brother who teaches history and see what his list would be.

For me...I've decided it's an interesting concept when looking at all history, a parlor game perhaps, but worth nothing more.

You are right in that skeptics can be isolated in their own communities; the same can be true of Christians, of course. And the pressure for Christians and skeptics to think in conformity is harmful to both communities.

BTW, I read your review of Wright's People of God at Amazon and as I read it myself I keep agreeing with that phrase: "a history book for the history books."

You are right. Someone knowledgeable about ancient Japan could provide one list, someone knowledgeable about ancient China another, someone knowledgeable about ancient Persia another. It just so happens that most people who will bother to respond to their already-withdrawn challenge are knowledgeable about the early Christian history.

And yes, Christians as well as skeptics can be isolated in their own echo chambers.

Thanks for the comments about my review. But did you mean The Resurrection of the Son of God rather than People of God. I enjoyed them both, in any event. :)

You know, I thought you attached that phrase to People of God, and that's where I'm starting myself. I may have gotten it wrong, though.

My mistake proves you are not a real historical person, by the way, and that I surely never read your review and that I heard your phrase second or third hand and that we never spoke...

Now I'm getting indulgent.

I'm about halfway through People and loved the philosophical intro though I wish it were more in-depth, longer, but Wright admits he is not an expert in literary theory or philosophy, etc. The discussion of second-temple Judaism seems very good (to a novice) and I appreciate his unwillingness to make blanket assumptions. The full complexity of any ancient historical study comes through.

Anyway, best to you, and glad to see you still working here. Your mind is one of the lights I use to find my way, a small span at a time, down the often dark path of 21st century belief.

Evidence in the Talmudic teachings shows a Rabbinical Sermon around 60AD that is a point-by-point parody of the Gospel of Matthew. Based on the idea that a Gospel would have had to be widespread and well known at that time for this Sermon to have had any cultural significance, most historians are now dating Matthew to between 30-40AD.

"Without any contemporary resource at all, there's no way to build a historical account, other than through historical inference."So, since most ancient histories we have are based on resources that aren't even as contemporary as the Gospels, you are basically saying that there's no way we can know almost anything historically from more than 1000 years ago.

"And such methods cannot be used with supernatural claims."And what exactly do you propose that would allow for supernatural claims to be considered as part of history? Nothing?

"So any reference to historical claims here commits a false analogy fallacy." Possibly, but you certainly haven't made that point.

Yet you fail to demonstrate one single mistake. Not one. Yet you seem to think you know what you are talking about. It is obvious you do not.

A key point: Without any contemporary resource at all, there's no way to build a historical account, other than through historical inference.

We have plenty of sources that go back to the time of Jesus. That is what the study of history is all about.

And such methods cannot be used with supernatural claims.

The existence of a Jewish messianic claimant who was killed by the Romans is hardly a supernatural claim. In any event, since you come across as a naturalist, it is obvious that there is no methods of supporting a supernatural claim that will satisfy you. You assume miracles are impossible.

Popular posts from this blog

We have changed the Christian History page at the CADRE site from the old design to the new one. The focus of the revamped page has expanded, with many new articles:This page provides links to websites and articles relating to Christian history, including theological development, notable figures, contributions of Christianity to society and culture, and the archaeological evidence for the facts of the Bible.We have also added four new articles by Darin Wood, PhD:John Chrysostum: His Life, Legacy, and InfluenceDr. Wood provides an informative sketch of Chrysostum's life, as well as an exploration into his writings and impact on church evangelism.The Righteousness of God in the Pauline CorpusDr. Wood examines the crucial role that righteousness plays in understanding Paul's perspectives on justification, propitiation, expiation, and covenant. The Structure of the ApocalypseDr. Wood provides an in-depth analysis of the structure (or structures) behind the Book of Revelation. C…

A visitor to the CADRE site recently sent a question about Paul's statement in Acts 20:35 which records Paul as saying, "And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is better to give than to receive'." The reader wanted to know where Jesus said this. This was my answer:

You are correct in noting that this saying of Jesus quoted by Paul is not found anywhere in the four Gospels. My own study Bible says "This is a rare instance of a saying of Jesus not found in the canonical Gospels."

Does the fact that it isn't stated in the Gospels mean that it isn't reliably from the lips of Jesus? I don't think so. The Apolstle John said at the end of his Gospel (John 21:25): "Jesus did many other things as well.If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." Obviously, this is exaggeration for the sake of making a point, but it means that Jesus di…

Stand to Reason has published a list of "talking points" that can be used as a quick reference sheet for answering questions about embryonic stem cell research and why people ought to oppose this procedure. The piece, entitled "Are you against stem cell research and cloning?" give good, concise answers to some of the questions that arise concerning why Christians would oppose this procedure when it supposedly holds such great promise.

For example, consider the following from the "talking points":

Where do we get human embryonic stem cells? We can only derive human embryonic stem cells by killing a human embryo. Removing its stem cells leaves it with no cells from which to build the organs of its body.

What is the embryo? An embryo is a living, whole, human organism (a human being) in the embryonic stage. All the embryo needs to live is a proper environment and adequate nutrition, the very same thing all infants, toddlers, adolescents, and adults need.This i…

As we approach Martin Luther King Jr. Day, I have been thinking about U2’s song Pride (In the Name of Love) (hereinafter, "Pride"). The song, of course, concerns MLKJr. (According to U2 Sermons, U2 formerly ran a video of MLKJr giving his “I have been to the mountaintop” speech during the playing of the song.) However, the lyrics of Pride are quite apparently not exclusively about MLKJr.

What is the genre of the Gospel of John and why does it matter? The latter question is easy to answer. It matters because “identification of a work’s genre helps us understand its place within the literary history . . . and aids us in its interpretation.” A.R. Cross, "Genres of the New Testament," in Dictionary of New Testament Background, eds. Craig Evans and Stanley E. Porter, page 402. When you pick up a contemporary book, you start with the knowledge that what you are reading is a romance, a science text book, a science fiction novel, a biography, or a book of history. That knowledge informs how you understand the text you are reading, such as reading how spaceship's propulsion system works in a scientific textbook or a Star Trek "technical manual". Or a scene of combat found in a historical novel or a biography of a medal of honor winner. Although these accounts may be described in similar ways, one you accept as true and the other you treat as fict…

One of the most interesting passages in Mark’s Passion Narrative, from a historiographical perspective, is Mark 15:21:

A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country and they forced him to carry the cross.First let us compare the passage to its parallels in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew (it does not appear at all in the Gospel of John).

As they led him away, they seized a man, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming from the country, and they laid the cross on him, and made him carry it behind Jesus.Luke 23:26.

As they went out, they came upon a man from Cyrene named Simon; they compelled this man to carry his cross.Matt 27:32.

Matthew and Luke retain the reference to Simon as well as describe him as being from Cyrene, but drop the reference to Cyrene being “the father of Alexander and Rufus.”

It is notable that Mark identifies Simon by name. This is rare for Mark unless the author is referring to the disciples and some famil…

The manger in which Jesus was laid has colored our imagery of Christmas. A manger, "[i]s a feeding-trough, crib, or open box in a stable designed to hold fodder for livestock.” Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, page 674. Usually, we associate the manger with the animals in the story of Christmas or with Jesus’ perceived poverty. I have several nativity sets which include the manger, along with barn animals. Although I am a nativity set enthusiast, there is a much deeper meaning in the manger.

The manger is mentioned three times in Luke 2. Mary lays Jesus in the manger, the angels tell the shepherds that they will find the Savior by seeking the baby lying in a manger, and then the shepherds in fact find Jesus lying in a manger. Obviously, the repetitive references to the manger are indicative of its significance in Luke’s narrative. As Bible scholar N.T. Wright comments:

[I]t was the feeding-trough, appropriately enough, which was the sign to the shepherds. It told them whic…

Richard H. Casdroph collected medical evidence, x-rays, angiograms, and other data from 10 cases associated with the Kathryn Kulhman ministry. Now it will of course strike skeptics as laughable to document the miracles of a faith healer. Ordinarily I myself tend to be highly skeptical of any televangelists. I am still skeptical of Kulhman because of her highly theatrical manner. But I always had the impression that there was actual documentation of her miracles and I guess that impression was created by the Casdorph book.

The Casdroph book goes into great detail on every case. Since these were not the actual patients of Casdroph himself, there are three tiers of medical data and opinion; Casdroph himself and his evaluation of the data, several doctors with whom he consulted on every case (and they vary from case to case), and the original doctors of the patients themselves. The patient…

Since the most prolific of my blogging partners, Layman, has been tied up at work (and looks to be for some time), I thought that in light of the Christmas season, I would repost two pieces that he wrote a couple of years ago about the Census in Luke 2 because we have an number of new readers who may never have read through his thoughts on this issue from two years ago. They are republished as originally written with only my correcting some typographical errors. Enjoy.

===============

Luke, the Census, and Quirinius: A Matter of Translation

Introducing the Issue

One of the more well-known criticisms of the Gospel of Luke’s infancy narratives is that it puts the census (also called a “registration”), that caused Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem, at the wrong time. Most versions translate Luke 2:1 along the lines of the New Revised Standard Version:

Luke 2:2: This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.The problem is that the registration that oc…

In his paper "Must the Beginning of The Universe Have a Personal Cause?"[1]Wes Morriston quotes William Lane Craig making the augment that a personal origin is the only way to have an eternal cause with a temporal effect.[2] The rationale for that is merely an assertion that with an eternal cause working mechanically the effect would be eternal too,:If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity? For example, if the cause of water's being frozen is the temperature's being below zero degrees, then if the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity, then any water present would be frozen from eternity. The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to,create an effect in time.[3]Craig is using this argument to argue for the personal nature of God, If God was j…

Who's Visiting Now

Comments Policy

This blog is open to comments by anyone interested provided: (1) the comments are civil, (2) they are on point, and (3) they do not represent efforts by the comment authors to steer readers to long posts on other websites. Additionally, the CADRE members and management reserve the right to call an end to discussions in the comments section for any reason or for no reason. Once the CADRE member has called the conversation, all further comments are subject to immediate deletion, and the individual commenting may be asked to leave. The members of the CADRE reserve the right to delete any posts that do not adhere to these policies without any further explanation.